James Claude Greer, II v. Director

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999713601-2] Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00432-GEC-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999766228]. Mailed to: James Claude Greer II RIVER NORTH CORRECTIONAL CENTER 329 Dell Brook Lane Independence, VA 24348. [15-7775]

Appeal: 15-7775

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7775

JAMES CLAUDE GREER, II,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
Director, VADOC,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District
Judge. (7:15-cv-00432-GEC-RSB)

Submitted:

February 25, 2016

Decided:

March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Claude Greer, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7775

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
James Claude Greer, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice
of appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district
court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

“[T]he timely filing of a notice of

appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court’s order was entered on the docket on
September 30, 2015.
2015.

The notice of appeal was filed on November 3,

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).

Because

Greer failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an
extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2